The Soapbox

The Soapbox allows you to stand up and have a rant, tell a bad joke, complain about someone or post stuff that that may not be appropriate for reading at work and/or isn't strictly IT industry related. It is rated M. Do not post anything offensive or which breaches the Terms of Use. Do not post programming questions (use the programming forums for that) and please don't post ads.

The SoapBox is not for flame wars, personal vendettas, or for grinding your axe. Trolling will not be tolerated. Anything inappropriate for this forum will be deleted immediately.

China has seen more than a half-dozen school attacks in less than three years, though the death tolls have been mostly in single digits, largely because knives have been the most-used weapon. China largely prohibits private ownership of guns.

Now where did that gun thread go? We can use this to poke fun and get them started again

I hate sites like this which require script just to display a list of images!

Buzzfeed design team:

We need to display a list of images. We obviously can't do that with plain HTML. Let's set all the images to point to a blank image, add the real URL as a different attribute, and then use a metric crapton of Javascript to change the image source when the page loads. That sounds like a good idea! Derp.

"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer

My daughter fell a fowl of auto correct on a Blackberry recently. She was writing a story about a great time she'd had while water rafting in some rapids. Unfortunately auto-correct replaced rapids with the word rapists. The idea that she was enjoying her time with some rapists had most of us in laughter and tears. When she discovered the mistake, she wanted to dump the Blackberry into the rapids.

Chris MeechI am Canadian. [heard in a local bar]

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra]

posting about Crystal Reports here is like discussing gay marriage on a catholic church’s website.[Nishant Sivakumar]

One commentor stated "Of course Obama demands proposals by January because if it goes on for too long, emotion and irrationality will fade and be replaced by facts, logic and reason. He can't have any of that."

I totally agree. Once the shock of this senseless act fades, and the emotion is replaced with logic, people will realize that not one single gun or bullet used that day was to blame, neither were the millions of law abiding gun owners who have never committed a crime with a gun.

People have been committing mass killings for years upon years. Don't think so? Look at the middle east. Car bombing and backpack bombings are a daily occurance.

I agree that something needs to be done, both to prevent this from happening again, and to honor those who died. But at this point this is a knee jerk reaction, and tempers and emotions need to settle down before decisions are made.

First, the Second Ammendment will not be repealed. Second, the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld gun owners rights, and that's not likely to change. Third, there are thousands gun related laws on the books. And still mass murderers reap carnage.

The problem isn't the gun, it's the shooter. I own guns, and I shoot regularly with my son. I have never seen anyone at these ranges (AKA responsible gun owners) do anything unsafe while shooting. Shooting is a sport, just as archery is. And you could easily kill more than a few people with a bow and arrows.

I take offense to someone labeling me a "gun nut' because I own guns. Am I a nut simply because I own guns? I also own a hunting knife, and a set of tools like hammers. Does that make me a "knife nut" or "hammer nut"? Why not, haven't people been killed with them before. Don't think so, look here[^].

People have been killing each other for thousands of years, and will continue to do so. Until we find a way to fix what's broken inside the people who do these crimes, no amount of laws will help. I call on everyone to stop being irrational and emotional. Yes, be shocked. Yes, be alarmed. But also be sensible and go after the real problem here.

Whilst the incident still makes me angry and upset, I see no reason to do anything until calmer heads can prevail.

That's my version of the same statement. I have never been, nor will I ever be willing to discuss further erosion of my Constitutional rights. Cooler heads may prevail, but people (politicians) who have positioned themselves to have an official voice in this argument do NOT represent me or my way of thinking.

".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010-----You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010-----"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997

I think the constitution is brilliant, if a little vague in spots. The 2nd amendment is not going away, even someone were to try. But assault rifles did not exist 200 years ago. Which is why the constitution is brilliant, they designed it to be amended. Which it has been several times. But the 2nd amendment does not guarantee a right to bear assault rifles.

And if you want to use them in a war against the US when it turns commie or fascist, you think we stand a chance given the money we let them spend on the military? Please.

Look at me still talking when there's science to do
When I look out there it makes me glad I'm not you

Well, this is probably a debate better left to constitutional scholars, but my understanding is that it was only very recently that the 2nd amendment is interpreted the way it is now. I read at least the first paragraph in an article on the Internet about it once.

So no, I believe the constitution does not guarantee the right to bear assault rifles. Or RPG's, nukes, BFG 9000's, etc. The assault rifle "ban" (wasn't it more of a limitation?) wasn't lifted because it was unconstitutional, but because it just wasn't renewed. The Supreme Court had ten years to declare it unconstitutional (I assume someone challenged it) and it didn't happen. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, it's been a while.

Look at me still talking when there's science to do
When I look out there it makes me glad I'm not you

You might as well say that the basic rights are the life we choose to offer you, the liberties we decide to allow, and the happiness that we think you should have. That's the way we treat the Constitution now anyway, so be honest about it. Unless that's against the rules of the freedom of speech we deem acceptable.

Well, why include the amendment at all. So long as you can still have a kitchen knife, or even a sturdy branch, you're still technically armed. The 2nd amendment must mean that the government can't take away our sturdy branches (but maybe our rocks - can't have people getting uppity!). Why not reinterpret it completely to mean that they won't remove the arms you were born with (the ones that tend to come with hands)? You wouldn't be of much use to a well regulated militia without any arms!

i think you (as in "you, americans") should make this amendment more clear. there's anyway to update his text? because if you can and do, then no one will be able to do gun control.

personally, i think you are right when you say that the population must have guns to defend them selfs. but they also need to receive security training. there's no point in all the citizens of the country having a gun but only a few knowing how and when to shoot...

I'm brazilian and english (well, human languages in general) aren't my best skill, so, sorry by my english. (if you want we can speak in C# or VB.Net =p)

There isn't a mechanism for refining the text of the Constitution, other than to pass new amendments (thus the reason for the 21st amendment to repeal the 18th), and even if there was, it would never get approved by 3/4th of the states.

Basically, at this point, there are probably too many guns in America to not allow guns in America (something like 89 guns per 100 people). Any useful talk about gun control would have to address the massive number of guns already in the U.S., but no one has a plan for that. So we'll fret over what 'assault-style' means and how big a magazine should be allowed, but any new regulations will only be on new weapons, so the effect will be minimal. Add to that the relative scarcity of mass shootings, and there either will be another one soon (the regulations weren't strong enough!) or there won't (see, the regulations worked!). There isn't a scenario where we wonder if they had any effect at all until 20 years down the road when everyone has forgotten why we bothered in the first place.

In 100 years, maybe there will be no more need to fight over resources. Maybe no one will need to hunt to feed their family, and crime will be so scarce that no one feels the need to protect their home. If you're focused on a 100 year cultural shift, then by all means do what you can. What I think is far less likely to succeed is going house to house and rounding up all the guns. There isn't a national registry, so good luck finding them. Americans right now aren't going to give up their guns to a government that was caught giving guns to the Mexican drug cartels.

even if you were only allowed to have muskets, this right would still be
granted, as it says bear arms and not bear any type of
arm

Incorrect. That is not how a 'right' works in the US.

Your argument would be similar to saying that free speech is allowed but only as long as one does nothing but talk about sports teams. Thus free speech about religion, politics and sex (among others) would all be forbidden.

Sentenryu wrote:

you can bear Pistols, shotguns, SMGs, RPGs, Nukes, whatever, just not Assault
rifles.

Also incorrect. Rights are not absolutes. There can be reasonable regulation despite the fact that it does infringe on a right. Which is exactly why one cannot yell 'fire' in a crowded theater.